Cultural nationalism as a
national security threat
An extended version of the KT op ed http://www.kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=108226
Former Vice President Hamid
Ansari has yet again drawn attention to the Othering of Muslims ongoing in
India and thereby the threat posed to Constitutional values. In discussing his
newly released autobiography, By Many a Happy Accident, at various
forums, he has reiterated that the drift towards a majoritarian democracy has a
potentially adverse underside. It tends to marginalize India’s, and indeed the
world’s, largest minority, India’s Muslims, thereby contravening two
constitutional values, secularism and fraternity.
He had earlier made the same
observation in lectures delivered prior to demitting office of vice president
and later during his retirement. He has reverted to this theme since the
situation appears to be getting worse in the second term of the Union
government, marking its coming to power with an increased majority in the lower
house a turning point on this score. The instances of Othering have increased,
such as through legislation both at the Center and in Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP)
ruled states on for instance ‘love jihad’, and the street power exercised by
supporters of the regime by violence against minorities.
In national security discourse, a
threat to national values is taken as a national security threat. To the extent
Hamid Ansari is right, there should be a corresponding interest in the threat
to national values in national security commentary. However, that is not the
case. The silence over this national security issue owes to either the national
security commentariat acquiescing with the phenomenon or being too overawed to
start referring to it as a national security threat.
Hamid Ansari observes a change in
the complexion of the Republic and the resulting perception of insecurity in a
significant section of the population, India’s Muslims. Does the threat that
causes insecurity for the minority, comprising over 14 per cent of the
population and with a geographical spread across the country, constitute a
national security threat?
The minority figures in national
security thinking only in terms of terrorism in Kashmir and in the hinterland
and radical Islamism to which the terror threat is attributed. There is little
reference to the threat from militant cultural nationalism vitiating the
security perception of the minority. This article makes the case that militant
cultural nationalism constitutes a national security threat and must be counted
as such in national security thinking, discussion and strategy.
The recent invasion by hard right
elements of the United States’ (US) Capitol is an example of how a threat can
mutate and pose a national security challenge. A fallout was in the manner the
swearing in ceremony of the new US president was conducted at the same location
under conditions of heightened security. That former US president, Donald
Trump, instigated the mob is now the subject of an impeachment trial. While the
threat of white supremacism has been around for some decades in the US, best
illustrated by the Oklahoma bombing in the mid-nineties, its security agencies have
been cognizant of the threat and treat it as such.
Analogy from the threat from the
extremist right wing in the US is not inapt. Whereas presently, when a right
wing government is in power in India, right wing extremists may not pose a
threat to the state apparatus as such, since in their mind’s eye, power is
being exercised by a right wing government they support. This accounts for the
symbiotic relationship between the government and right wing militant cultural
nationalists. The government does not recognize them as a threat and therefore
there is no action against them even in cases of violence, for example, for
their role in the Bhima Koregaon violence of 2018 or the more recent role in
Delhi riots of February 2020. Instead in both cases the onus for the violence
fell on the communities subject to the violence, the Mahar and Muslims
respectively, with the law additionally proceeding against some left wing
activists in the former case. However, in case of a democratic change over,
their increased power, visibility and reach under the current regime, may
embolden them to pose a national security challenge, as have white supremacists
in the example above in the US.
Whereas this is a potential
national security threat that can manifest in future, they also pose a threat
currently in their generating a threat for the minority. This is where the
symbiotic relationship with the ruling party kicks in, wherein they serve as
the militant foot soldiers for advancing the anti-minority agenda of the
cultural nationalists. The resulting polarization furthers the political
interest of the Hindutva espousing BJP.
Understandably then, in the
national security thinking on internal security threats there is never a
mention of the right wing as a threat. The three ‘usual suspects’ in this list
are terrorism in Kashmir, Left Wing Extremism and militancy in the North East. This
silence owes in part to national security being statist in orientation and
dependent on the government’s input, expending much attention in rationalizing
the government’s policies and actions. To an extent, the realists that populate
the strategic community share the realist thinking of the government and many
also subscribe to a Hindutva worldview. Consequently, this is an area of
deliberate inattention rather than evidence of non-existence of a case for
including militant cultural nationalism as a national security threat.
The threat is constituted along
two lines. One is that potential of marginalization of the minority resulting
in a militarization of its response. The terror taken as minority perpetrated
is liable to go up. This has been on the crosshairs of analysts for long in
their dwelling on the penetration of radical Islamists ideas in Muslim
communities and deradicalization as a measure against it. Even in this
commentary, missing has been a focus or reference to right wing perpetrated
terrorism. Whereas it found mention early last decade in the home minister’s
reference to saffron terrorism, those whose actions prompted the observation have
largely been left off after the BJP came to power. This implies that the threat
from militant cultural nationalists that could push a minority towards violence
in rebound would not be registered among the causes. Therefore, the likelihood
of persistence of the insecurity that might provoke such a response.
The second is more significant.
Militant cultural nationalism is already changing the complexion of the
Republic. Its pursuit of increased solidarity within the Hindu community
through an attempt at homogenization overriding the diversity that constitutes the
community requires an ‘Other’ to stand in contradistinction to Hindus and
Hinduism. Having alighted on Muslims and Islam as the Other, it has reduced
inter-community fraternity – a preamble articulated Constitutional value –
within India. The ruling party has introduced laws such as the Citizenship
Amendment Act (CAA) which have imposed on the secular fabric of Republic.
They also build in inequality in
citizenship to detriment of Muslims. If the sequence envisaged of a National
Population Register (NPR) populating exercise is followed through with, along
with perhaps the census exercise, then the CAA-NPR constitute a double whammy,
with Muslims at the receiving end of the legislative stick. In light of such
portents, the possibility of a Hindu Republic is not a theoretical one anymore.
Since this shift in the constitutional moorings changes India as we know it,
does what is behind the shift –militant cultural nationalism – constitute a
national security threat that should be recognized and countered as such?
Whereas a threat causing
insecurity for the minority can be proceeded with through implementation of
rule of law, the shift in the Republic’s moorings is not so much from militant
cultural nationalism as from cultural nationalism that is behind it. Since the
ruling party is persuaded by cultural nationalism, it is unwilling to exercise
its rule of law function of governance against the vehicle with which, as
mentioned, it shares a symbiotic relationship. Therefore, any expectation of
inclusion of militant cultural nationalism as a national security threat shall
remain unmet.
Since cultural nationalism
empowers militant cultural nationalism and is an ideological push against
constitutional verities, can and should cultural nationalism be taken as a national
security threat? Hindutva is now an entrenched ideology that energises
supporters of the democratically elected ruling party. If constitutional values
are substituted by Hindutva endorsed values in a democratic and procedurally
legal manner, the challenge against such a shift can only be political and by a
democratic counter mobilization for mounting a legitimate challenge.
However, as seen, militant
cultural nationalism is a vehicle for cultural nationalism, enabling its polarizing
sway over voters. This is an illegitimate practice. A state apparatus
controlled by the ruling party and one rendered hollow by preceding years of
political inroads and enervation cannot be expected to stand up for the law
against its own misuse. Expert commentary has it that even the courts have to a
large extent vacated the moral high ground. Therefore, while change may be
ongoing and underfoot, to the extent militant cultural nationalism is at its
vanguard, the change, albeit by procedurally legal means, is illegitimate.
To the extent militant cultural
nationalism is used by cultural nationalism for its purpose of replacing a
secular republic with a Hindu republic then it cultural nationalism is a
national security threat. Cultural nationalism that plays by a democratic playbook
is not a national security threat, even if it aims to question the
constitutional schema, but turns into one in case the instrument and means it
uses are illegal and illegitimate. Attempting to change the republic in its
desired image democratically is expected to be countered by the checks and
balances in the system such as the doctrine of basic structure. In so far as
these check and balances are delegitimised by procedurally illegal and
illegitimate means, such as mounting pressure on the judiciary that is
custodian of the doctrine of basic structure, then cultural nationalism would
turn into a national security threat.
Showing the national security
card to cultural nationalism is important not only to deter its abuse of
militant cultural nationalism as an instrument, but to ensure it sticks to the
accepted political practices in its bid to turn India into its preferred image.
Securitisation - labelling an issue as an issue in national security - serves
the purpose of focusing minds, in this case on a political ideology, as
invoking security, with its existential connotations, draws the attention.
Whereas the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, that is the crucible of the ideology,
has been banned on occasion earlier, the political fortunes of its political
front, the BJP, have emboldened it and given it an impunity. The ideology has
the acquired the advantage of political mainstreaming and furthering through
the dubious instrumentality of the state. Therefore, it is unlikely to be
called out or put back in the box by the state, that it now controls. The
challenge to the cozy co-habitation of the state, that is meant to be impartial
and neutral, with a political ideology has to come from outside. While the
political opposition has on occasion spiritedly pointed to this, notably Rahul
Gandhi who once named it while his party was in power as the principal national
security threat, there has been little or no traction of this perspective.
The strategic community has been
amiss in steering clear of discussing cultural nationalism and militant
cultural nationalism in national security terms. Whereas cultural nationalism
as a political ideology may be unexceptionable, it has long been inseparable
from militant cultural nationalism. A problem area that emerges from such
selective gaze is that the national security discourse then lends itself to
manipulation.
An illustration is the inflation
in the terror discourse of terrorism attributed to Muslim perpetrators. For
instance, there are 22 pending cases of encounter deaths in Gujarat pertaining
to the Modi period there as chief minister when supposedly terrorists out to
kill Modi or commit terrorism were killed by the police. There are also
questions over provenance of some terror bombings across the country in the
first decade. These questions remain since there was little effort to uncover
evidence that would point to other than a Muslim hand in such incidents. Lack
of evidence was on account of lack of effort to collect such evidence rather
than its absence. That most such incidents led to Muslims being incarcerated,
many being left after years in jail, is suggestive not only of incompetence but
also a cover up that cries out for investigation.
A captive media has dutifully
magnified the police handed out versions. Polarisation resulted and has accrued
in a political dividend for the ruling party. Thus, the electorate has in a
sense been manipulated by fake news on black operations. While this is relevant
to understand the first BJP election victory, the second one did not witness
preceding terror incidents since terror incidents, other than in Kashmir,
curiously ceased on the BJP attaining power. This is yet more evidence that the
earlier mainstream reportage over instances amounted to fake news. The gainer
being the BJP implies a complicity and casts a pall over the manner it attained
power. When in power it has turned the other way as majoritarian mobs have
carried out micro terror pushing Muslims to the ropes over the beef and love
jihad issues.
This marginalization of Muslims
is an assault on the constitutional values. Therefore, the resulting insecurity
of Muslims, as pointed out by Hamid Ansari amongst others, is a national
security issue on two counts: from the sway of militant cultural nationalism,
to levels the state has lost monopoly over instruments of violence, and,
second, but more importantly, as it
points towards the incipient make over of India from a secular republic to a
Hindutva subscribing one.
